Cavuto asked his guest, What part of Custer dont you understand here, where youre surrounded, and you see one incident after another that comes up, and it all it all comes back to the same basic issue: privacys invaded or potentially invaded, institutions of all sorts doing pretty much the same thing. There is a pattern.

If you want to conflate and combine all these issues and then make these general statements, you can do that, Epstein said. I just dont think its a thoughtful way of approaching it.

Cavuto interrupted his guest and shouted, Why dont you think about what I said, Julian? Im asking you to think and connect all the  no, no, Julian, dont play the politics game.

I dont connect the dots, argued Epstein.

This got Cavuto even angrier. Julian, Im telling you, drop the liberal thing and focus on the reality thing. You have one entity after another going after the American people. You have one system of government, one agency, one department after another essentially doing the same thing. You can call that conflating. I am telling you there is a pattern, and youre just shrugging your shoulders. But I guarantee you, Julian, if it were George Bush doing it, you would rightly be all over it.

Thats wrong, Epstein dishonestly said. Thats actually incorrect because look, you cant conflate all of these issues. You have to speak about them separately because theyre very different. In the case of the IRS, I agree the targeting was wrong, but there was never any connection to the White House. Nobodys proven that.

At that moment, one of Cavutos other guests, Charlie Gasparino, said off-camera, This guy would make a lousy reporter.

As Epstein continued with the White House talking points, Cavuto interrupted again saying, Im not going to get anywhere arguing this point. Ben Stein, Julian, no, you are saying nothing. Im sorry, Julian, youre saying nothing and its offensive. Because Ben Stein, Julian, why dont you talk facts? Its annoying how obnoxious you can be on the reality.

Epstein tried again to give the Democratic Party line, and Cavuto snapped, Im not going to play this game with you, Julian. You play the same damn game dismissing one institution.

Saw one of “Obama’s people” on Fox this morning dismissing Joe Manchin’s comments regarding Eric Holder saying Manchin has as much pull in the Democrat Party as Rush Limbaugh. I hope to heck these comments make it into a campaign commercial...

12
posted on 06/08/2013 2:36:17 PM PDT
by gov_bean_ counter
(Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,)

It will take years to correct this indoctrination that has been foisted on us the last 40 years or so....if we could survive it that long.

“We are the ones we have been waiting for”

I knew what he meant when he said it, and I hope the American people are coming to understand what he meant now too....and I hope enough of them care enough to do some thing about it....but I suspect the usual 30% or so will have to pull the wagon, as usual throughout history.

14
posted on 06/08/2013 2:36:50 PM PDT
by Las Vegas Ron
(Medecine is the keystone in the arch of socialism - Vladimir Lenin)

Epstein, Juan Williams, Bob “no neck” Beckel, and Alan Colmes are all first class @zzholes. I don’t care for either of them. On the other hand, allowing them to bloviate shows us the liberal mindset. Facts mean nothing to them.

I used to watch the "business block" on Saturday mornings all the time. However, a few years ago (I think it was around the time Obama first came into office and his puppets were criticizing Fox News) I noticed that all of the business shows on Saturday morning now had an obligatory Democratic party spokesperson. Not just a liberal economist, which they already had; but a Democratic party person. I found this offensive as there is never a Republican party person on one of these shows. They have conservative business people, moderate business people, and liberal business people on these shows. I found the inclusion of one party's spokespeople to be a total cave to who ever had been criticizing them.

I am surprised that Cavuto was so aggressive with this guy; really happy about it as Epstein is a jerk; but, surprised.

Never understood why they have Epstein on that show. Get a liberal that actually believes the stuff and let them try and debate. I have never seen someone as cold and phony a spokesman for a cause as Epstein. No passion just programmed BS

Hannity has him on a lot. He lies as soon as he opens his mouth. I can't understand why Sean has him on.

Hannity has him on because he knows it will generate controversy and thereby viewers. Hannity thrives on controversy. He thinks it's really cool when he can have several guests all taking over each other and stirring the pot, which accomplishes nothing.

I rarely listen to Hannity for this reason.

42
posted on 06/08/2013 3:24:38 PM PDT
by upchuck
(To the faceless, jack-booted government bureaucrat who just scanned this post: SCREW YOU!)

“JULIAN EPSTEIN, FRMR. CHIEF MIN. COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY CMTE.: Well, there is a number of rubs. I would just respectfully disagree with my old chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner, in terms of who is covered by this. I think it is covered by anyone the president wants to deem as covered, it’s not just the al Qaeda terrorists. The plain language of the order says anybody, who does anything as far harboring someone who is connected to an undefined term of terrorism.

The terrorism conduct isn’t defined anywhere within the executive order, so I think the breadth of it is startling. And again, if you go back to Supreme Court precedent, World War II and the Civil War precedent, I think one of the reasons the Supreme Court, one of the continual threads the Supreme Court has issued is that these military tribunals really need to be confined to combatants.

Secondly, I think that it’s on very, very shaky ground without constitutional authorization. Chairman Sensenbrenner, I think, has been one of the most effective chairmen ever of the House Judiciary Committee. When they passed the Patriot Act, the authority that the president sought to get so that he could investigate and prosecute these crimes, Chairman Sensenbrenner was able to get through the committee those provisions on a 36 to nothing vote.

It seems to me to be wholly unreasonable to expect that this Congress could — would not stand shoulder to shoulder with the president in fashioning the appropriate safeguards if you do want to use military tribunals.”

43
posted on 06/08/2013 3:29:40 PM PDT
by CodeToad
(Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.